The legal troubles of Google in Europe just got a whole lot more expensive. A Berlin court has hit the tech giant with €572 million ($664 million) in damages after ruling it systematically abused its dominant position to crush competition in the price comparison market for over 15 years.
The ruling marks one of the largest antitrust-related penalties ever issued against Google in Europe, adding to an already staggering bill, now over €3.5 billion, for its anticompetitive behavior in the comparison shopping sector alone.
The court issued separate decisions awarding €465 million to Idealo, a price comparison platform owned by German media group Axel Springer, and €107 million to rival service Producto. The judges found that from 2008 until 2023, Google deliberately steered traffic toward its own shopping service at the expense of competitors, effectively starving them of the visibility needed to survive.
Idealo Wins Damages Against Google in Landmark Self-Preferencing Case
Idealo had originally sought €3.3 billion in damages, arguing that Google’s tactics cost the company years of lost traffic and advertising revenue. While the final award fell short of that figure, it still represents a substantial victory for the platform and sends a clear message about accountability.
“We will continue to fight – because market abuse must have consequences and must not become a lucrative business model that pays off despite fines and damages payments,” Albrecht von Sonntag, the co-founder of Idealo, said. His remarks reflect growing frustration among tech companies that feel existing fines haven’t been enough to keep bad behavior by dominant platforms in check.
Tuesday’s decision from the Berlin court extends a 2024 ruling by the European Court of Justice that Google had committed “self-preferencing” in the comparison shopping market. That ruling affirmed a €2.95 billion EU competition fine against the company, setting a legal precedent that has now opened the door for individual companies to seek their own damages.
Google’s Self-Preferencing Practice and the European Regulatory Backlash
The practice of self-preferencing, though simple, is devastating to competitors. When users searched for products, Google would prominently display results from its own shopping service while burying links to rival comparison sites deep in the search results.
Given that most users seldom click beyond the first few results, this gave Google an enormous advantage while essentially making competitors invisible.
Not surprisingly, Google has rejected the court’s findings and declared it will appeal both decisions. The company argues that it made significant changes to its shopping service back in 2017 in order to comply with European competition law, putting other comparison websites on an equal footing to display ads within its shopping unit.
“The changes we made in 2017 have proven successful without intervention from the European Commission,” a Google spokesperson told TechCrunch. Participation in its remedy-based shopping ads unit has exploded from just seven price comparison services in 2017 to more than 1,500 today, it says.
Google also still argues that its shopping results compete as if they were a standalone business, bidding in auctions like everyone else. Critics quickly note a fundamental flaw in the argument: Google runs the auction mechanism. Its twin role as auctioneer and bidder could give the company inherent advantages that no rival could ever hope to match.
The German ruling comes at a crucial period for technology regulation in Europe. Regulators throughout the continent are tightening their focus on large platforms, especially those that control the gateways to online commerce and information.
European Regulators Signal a New Era of Competition Enforcement Against Google
This ruling came just weeks after European regulators fined Google nearly €3 billion for favoring its own advertising services over those of competitors.
There is also an ongoing investigation over whether the company’s spam policies unfairly impact how publishers rank in search results. It raises questions over whether Google uses quality control measures as another way to take advantage of rivals.
These cases suggest European courts and regulators take a more expansive view of what constitutes competition harm, especially in situations where dominant platforms can make the determination of which competitors will remain visible to users.
The shift represents a significant evolution in antitrust enforcement, beyond traditional concerns about price and toward how platform design choices can eliminate competition.
For Google, the penalties add up to more than financial pain: They are a signal that European authorities will no longer tolerate market dominance at the expense of a level playing field. Whether the consequences will ultimately change the company’s behavior remains to be seen, but the message is clear: The days when antitrust fines could be written off as a cost of doing business may finally be over.
